"So, would this mean printing companies would STOP buying the P-EL licenses once they crunch the numbers and find they are unable to compete with DT? Remember if a printing company were to purchase an image for the purpose of reselling it as a prin [Leer más...] Posteado en New feature: Order a Print

"So, would this mean printing companies would STOP buying the P-EL licenses once they crunch the numbers and find they are unable to compete with DT? Remember if a printing company were to purchase an image for the purpose of reselling it as a print to the general pubic (even if they ONLY sold ONE print) they are required to purchase the P-EL." Thank you. It is absurd to assume that buyers of prints would simply throw the canvases away once they've tired of its use. Why isn't DT paying P-EL for the use of our photos in this manner. I mean, they're making more profit out of selling prints now--shouldn't they abide by the very rules they've created for everyone else? posted in New feature: Order a Print

"Opting out is still not going to stop the things you mentioned happening as anybody can download your images and get them printed themselves. The only way you can stop this is to not to sell your fine art on microstock sites." says Godfer Thi [Leer más...] Posteado en New feature: Order a Print

"Opting out is still not going to stop the things you mentioned happening as anybody can download your images and get them printed themselves. The only way you can stop this is to not to sell your fine art on microstock sites." says Godfer This is where you missed my point...for someone to do what they did as you stated above, would be in violation of the terms if they didn't pay the P-EL. This is a viable case to present in a court of law and it would be in our favor. However, if a product is sold--they have the right to resell the very product they bought. Dreamstime here is basically implying this: if you buy a print from here, you cannot do anything with it except to use it or throw it away. That will not hold in a court of law, sorry. My point is simply this: there is a significant difference between the two that one is prosecutable in a court of law and the other isn't. That's all. I don't understand why you guys are making such a big deal for a simple request: an "opt out" feature. I'm not saying you should opt out--that is your right, your own decision. I want to opt out some of my photos (not saying all of them--especially my 9/11 photo)--and I'm getting the feeling you're becoming all republican on me--imposing whatever you think is appropriate for me, whether I like it or not. posted in New feature: Order a Print

I think this idea is revolutionary...Though I'm not sure I want some of my photographs being part of this, you see..I'm not just a photographer, I do art as well and it is my understanding that once you sell a product of fine art...irrelevant o [Leer más...] Posteado en New feature: Order a Print

I think this idea is revolutionary...Though I'm not sure I want some of my photographs being part of this, you see..I'm not just a photographer, I do art as well and it is my understanding that once you sell a product of fine art...irrelevant of terms here for it...it is out of our hands... They cannot reprint it or make duplicates, that's our copyright; but it ends there. If the customer ever should decide that it doesn't look good on their wall anymore, they DO have the right to resell it--at a higher price than what they bought it for. I'm not sure I appreciate getting only $1 or less for the print to be made whilst everyone else gets to reap the profits of the fine art product that I created. I agree with the other "complainers," I would like to be able to opt out some of my photos for this feature. If I had wanted to do this feature I'd be over at imagekind, cafepress, zazzle, and the likes. Those who wants to expand to mugs, mousepads and the sort of stuff you'd like to see in from pics should google up "Print on Demand." posted in New feature: Order a Print